Grab the issue you care most about—climate change, sustainable cities, a fair economy, or something else—sit it down, look it in the eye, and tell it there will be no Christmas this year. Or next year, or the next—we cannot fix important problems until we fix democracy.
“Remove #corruption from elections, and #democracy will become responsive to citizens.”
Climate change should be imminently solvable. We know which policies work. We have clean technologies, and people want to fix it. But none of that matters if government doesn’t represent the people. If government is implementing policies and propping up industries because they are lucrative for a small group of plutocrats, then no amount of public demand or technology solutions will help us solve climate change. Or any other issue that we care about.
We need a government that represents the people.
Professor Larry Lessig eloquently explains that the root of the problem, the fundamental corruption of US democracy, is elected officials’ dependence on the tiny number of wealthy funders who control elections. Remove corruption from elections, and democracy will become responsive to citizens.
But there is more than one root.
Lessig raised an $11 million PAC to elect anti-corruption candidates to the US Congress in hopes of getting enough votes to pass a nation-wide Anti-Corruption Act. The support of 95 percent of Americans plus a big chunk of money should win a few elections, right? Wrong. Lessig’s first effort flopped, yielding an important lesson: in a two-party system, partisanship trumps everything. Even dearly held issues. Even money.
You can prove the primacy of partisanship to yourself right now: say you are a Democrat. In the next Congressional election, you have to choose between voting for a Democrat who has not come out in favor of campaign finance reform, or for an anti-corruption Republican (yes, this hypothetical is less likely than the reverse situation—ten out of 300 Republican Congress members are anti-corruption, compared to 138 out of 236 Democrats). You care deeply about campaign-finance reform. You know we can’t solve anything else until we solve it. Do you vote for your only anti-corruption option, the Republican? No! That guy could tip the majority to a party that is going to limit women’s reproductive health, legalize concealed guns, and abolish the estate tax. Hell no. You vote for the Democrat. And elect one more member of Congress who is not going to pass a bill to oust corruption. Sigh.
In a two-party system, partisanship trumps all.
The outsized influence of money is a root problem, but there is another root: the structures of democratic representation in North America disenfranchise voters. I already explained the horrors of the Electoral College and how we can help make it irrelevant. Gerrymandered, single-member, winner-take-all districts are worse. They elevate fundraising above all other political skills, entrench a bitterly partisan two-party system in the United States, and, in Canada, enable rule by factions that often do not command a majority of public support and force voters to cast votes tactically, because real representation is unattainable.
“Allowing voters to break free of partisanship and elect candidates who more accurately reflect their views would result in a Congress that looks a lot more like the people.”
Picture that Congressional election again, but this time imagine that instead of being forced to choose either the Democrat or the Republican, you could elect three out of six possible candidates. You rank six possible candidates for Congress, and the top three vote-getters will win a seat. Your choices: a typical Democrat, a typical Republican, a Warren-wing Democrat, a Tea-Party Republican, a Green Party member, and a Libertarian. Let’s say every candidate other than the typical Democrat and Republican are anti-corruption.
What do you do? You rank the Warren-wing Democrat first because we need more Elizabeth Warrens in office. You rank the Libertarian second because he is committed to making the tax system simpler and fairer, and your third ranking goes to the Green Party member because she will fight for social justice and sustainability. If your top three choices win, you elected three anti-corruption members of Congress instead of none (in the two-party scenario).
If you are in a “safe” Republican district, then under a two-party system you have no shot at electing a candidate, but in this “elect three” election you are guaranteed to put at least one candidate you support in office. Isn’t that satisfying? Conversely, if you’re a conservative in urban Cascadia, your vote will never count in a two-party system, but you and your fellow urban conservatives would have a voice in an “elect three” system. In Canada, instead of choosing to throw your vote away on the Greens, or sacrificially vote for the Liberals, you could vote your true preference and know that everyone’s preference will be reflected in Ottawa.
Now imagine the US Congress that would emerge from such an election. In the current gerrymandered, two-party system, Congress is much more conservative and partisan than the American people it is supposed to represent. Look at that large swath of unrepresentative red swallowing up the purple in the current Congress: that’s what “no Christmas” looks like. Allowing voters to break free of partisanship and elect candidates who more accurately reflect their views would result in a Congress that looks a lot more like the people. Look at the big purple middle of the American People and the small minority of Americans who hold uniformly conservative values: that’s what potential for progress looks like.
Original Sightline Institute graphic, available under our free use policy.
Maybe you are thinking this sounds like a nice pipe dream. Sure, we could use multi-member districts and ranked-choice voting and elect a legislature that actually represents the people—hah, yeah, or maybe we could all sprout wings and fly through the halls of power in our capitols and sprinkle magic fairy dust that makes sustainable policies pass.
“It won’t be easy. But nothing this important is. And it will be worth the fight because a functioning representative democracy is a prerequisite to a sustainable Pacific Northwest.”
It’s not a pipe dream. It’s a realistic dream. Alan has been describing the ways to get a grip on money in politics and reform the initiative process. He’s even helping to launch a first-ever democracy voucher program in the city of Seattle, as a proving ground for broader reform. I’ve described how to dramatically expand voting. With this article, I launch a new series of articles that unveil how we northwesterners can have representative democracy. It’s within our grasp. We don’t need a Constitutional Amendment. We don’t need a revolution. We just need to increase the use of voting methods that many American states, Canadian provinces, and cities are already using or have used in the past. Experience with these voting methods shows that a few modest changes mean the difference between bitter partisan campaigns plus a gridlocked legislature, and constructive campaigns plus a representative democracy.
It won’t be easy. But nothing this important is. And it will be worth the fight because a functioning representative democracy is a prerequisite to a sustainable Pacific Northwest.
There will be no Christmas until we succeed, but once we do, every election will feel like Christmas as Santa finally delivers the government we asked for.
Note: In the chart, for the classification of Congress, I used FairVote’s analysis. For the classification of the American People, I used Pew Research Center’s 12 Political Typologies and broke them down as follows: Strong liberal includes Pew’s Solid Liberal; Moderate Liberal includes Pew’s Faith & Family Left and Next Generation Left; Moderate includes Pew’s Hard-pressed Skeptics, Young Outsiders, and Bystanders; Moderate Conservative includes Pew’s Business Conservative; Strong Conservative includes Pew’s Steadfast Conservative.
richard pauli
Great article thanks. I might quibble with only one phrase -“We don’t need a revolution.” Instead I would say “We don’t WANT a revolution”
Alexis de Tocqueville, in his last work, wrote of the causes of the French Revolution – an Aristocracy persistently out-of-touch with the people. A cultural disconnect of empathy that seems to have modern parallels. I am often shocked by my discussions with older people – WW2 veterans and older, who mumble about how governments are serving the wrong interests and the need for tumultuous change. (older people tend to seek faster changes) And I am reminded that while we seek a local revitalization of our democracy, the key problem is global in scope. Human civilization – no matter the political structure – must abide by the new physical rules of survival. There are about 7+ billion people in the world now – yet most governments were established when there were 1 billion in the world. There will be painful, revolutionary changes, but not likely by our planning or effort. Instead the inevitable consequences are by physical, thermodynamic and biological upheavals from destabilizing climates. We will need to adjust to this disrupted future, and communal effort is most efficient – and a non-violent democratic process preferred. Under a classic philosophy of government the sovereign leaders must protect the citizens – if even slightly. History shows big problems when that protection and service fails. Our structure allows for change, our techno-culture permits deep communication, challenges are nicely defined, so unified and focused effort can bypass the obstructions to survival. Rapid change seems possible and plausible.
Ken
The underlying cause of the two-party system is First-Past-the-Post (FPP) rules of declaring election “winners.” This rule is not set forth in the US Constitution, but by states.
A common alternative (especially in Parliamentary systems) is the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system, where seats are distributed to parties, based on their proportion of the popular vote.
Of course, *every* system can be gamed – and for societies with highly diverse attitudes about any given topic, more diverse representation doesn’t necessarily lead to change. MMP rules can just as often be used to “lock-in” status quo policies, since the resulting political diversity usually makes it far easier to spoil any effort to establish a majority coalition, especially for contentious issues.
Look at New Zealand since the 1984 elections. Labor’s 1984+ neoliberal reforms (more extreme than even the Pinochet regime) were effectively locked-in by the 1993 referendum, shifting from FPP to MMP voting. Disappointment at the scope and impact of those reforms led voters to diffuse the potential for change.
There is no perfect solution. We agree on the damaging effects of a system where $1 = 1 vote, but I urge caution when experimenting with ways of translating election results to representation.
“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the vote” – or rather, how the vote is counted – that counts.
Dan
Alternatively, we should limit all “advertising” such that candidates can say, ” I’m Chris, running for xyz office, please go to my web page to learn my opinions on issues.”
That’s it. No more negative, ads with false claims and half truths – unless you choose to go looking for them.
Steve4598@aol.com
Dont Sign I -122. One Line in It makes for Discrimination against
Signature Gathers. The ACLU will go to court for them. It will
cost the City another $250,000 in legal fee’s.
This campaign is being funded by Big Pocketed Special Interest
Groups. They talk about Big Money in Seattle and r bringing in
a lot of Big Contributions for outside Seattle.
Steve
Meera Ramachandran
Great article! Insightful and educational.
Frank J
Representative democracy … inherently divisive, corrupt, unrepresentative of virtually the entire population, and it’s grown to be inefficient, stagnating, and decadent (just like it always does).